Exploring the outcomes in studies of primary frozen shoulder: is there a need for a core outcome set?

Anti-TNF (adalimumab) injection for the treatment of adults with frozen shoulder during the pain predominant stage protocol for a multi-centre, randomised, double blind, parallel group, feasibility trial

Objectives

The Anti-Freaze-F trial will assess the feasibility of conducting a large randomised controlled trial to assess whether intra-articular injection of anti-TNF (adalimumab) can reduce pain and improve function in people with pain predominant early stage frozen shoulder.

Methods and analysis

We are conducting a multi-centre, randomised feasibility study, with an embedded qualitative sub-study. We will recruit adults ≥18 years with a new episode of shoulder pain attributable to early stage frozen shoulder, recruited from at least five UK NHS musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services. Participants (n=84) will be randomised (centralised computer generated 1:1 allocation) to receive either: 1) intra-articular injection of anti-TNF (adalimumab 160mg) or 2) placebo injection (saline [0.9% sodium chloride]), both under ultrasound guidance. A second injection of the allocated treatment (adalimumab 80mg) or equivalent volume of placebo will be administered 2-3 weeks later. All participants will receive a physiotherapy advice leaflet providing education and advice about frozen shoulder and pain management. The primary feasibility objectives are: 1) the ability to screen and identify potential participants with pain predominant early stage frozen shoulder; 2) willingness of eligible participants to consent and be randomised to intervention; 3) practicalities of delivering the intervention, including time to first injection and number of participants receiving second injection; 4) standard deviation of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score and attrition rate at 3 months (i.e. 12 weeks) post-randomisation in order to estimate the sample size for a definitive trial. We will also assess follow up rates and viability of patient-reported outcome measures and range of shoulder motion for a definitive trial. Research Ethics Committee approval (REC 21/NE/0214).

Trial registration number

ISRCTN 27075727; EudraCT number: 2021-003509-23; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05299242.

Manipulation under Anesthesia versus Non-Surgical Treatment for Patients with Frozen Shoulder Contracture Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Purpose: To investigate the efficacy of manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) compared to other non-surgical therapeutic strategies for patients with frozen shoulder contracture syndrome (FSCS). Methods: A systematic review of literature was conducted. A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, Cochrane Central Library and Scopus. Only randomized controlled trials were included and assessed for critical appraisal through the Cochrane Collaborations tools. Results: Five randomized controlled trials were included. The overall risk of bias (RoB) was high in 4 out of 5 of the included studies. MUA was found to be not superior in terms of reduction of pain and improvement of function when compared to cortisone injections with hydrodilatation (mean regression coefficient MUA −2.77 vs. injection −2.75; 95% CI (−1.11 to 1.15)) and home exercise (mean difference 95% CI: 0.2 (−0.64 to 1.02)) in the short term (3 months), and cortisone injections with hydrodilatation (mean regression coefficient MUA 3.13 vs. injection 3.23; 95% CI (−0.90 to 1.11)) in the long term (>6 months). Moreover, if compared to structured physiotherapy, MUA highlighted a higher Oxford Shoulder Score at final 1-year follow up (mean difference 95% CI: 1.05 (−1.28 to 3.39); p = 0.38). Similar results were obtained for disability, with statistically no significant long-term (>12 months) differences between MUA and home exercise (mean difference 95% CI: 0 (−3.2 to 3.2)) or structured physiotherapy (mean difference 95% CI: −0.50 (−5.70 to 4.70); p = 0.85)). Only two trials reported adverse events. Conclusions: This review suggested that limited and inconsistent evidence currently exists on the efficacy of MUA compared to other non-surgical strategies in the management of patients with FSCS. Future research should focus on clinical trials with higher methodological quality.

Post-surgical physiotherapy in frozen shoulder: A review

Despite its prevalence, the optimal management of frozen shoulder is unclear. A range of conservative measures are often undertaken with varying degrees of success. In cases of severe and persistent symptoms, release procedures which could include any combination of manipulation under anaesthetic, arthroscopic capsular release or hydrodilatation are frequently offered, none of which has been shown to offer superior outcome over the others. When surgical release is performed a period of rehabilitation is normally recommended but no best practice guidelines exist resulting in considerable variations in practice which may or may not directly affect patient outcome. During this narrative review, we hypothesise that these differing responses to treatment (both conservative and surgical options) are potentially the result of different causal mechanisms for frozen shoulder and may also suggest that post-release rehabilitation may need to take this into account.

Which outcomes should be used in future bronchiolitis trials? Developing a bronchiolitis core outcome set using a systematic review, Delphi survey and a consensus workshop

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in future clinical trials in bronchiolitis. We wanted to find out which outcomes are important to healthcare professionals (HCPs) and to parents and which outcomes should be prioritised for use in future clinical trials.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The study used a systematic review, workshops and interviews, a Delphi survey and a final consensus workshop.

RESULTS

Thirteen parents and 45 HCPs took part in 5 workshops; 15 other parents were also separately interviewed. Fifty-six items were identified from the systematic review, workshops and interviews. Rounds one and two of the Delphi survey involved 299 and 194 participants, respectively. Sixteen outcomes met the criteria for inclusion within the COS. The consensus meeting was attended by 10 participants, with representation from all three stakeholder groups. Nine outcomes were added, totalling 25 outcomes to be included in the COS.

CONCLUSION

We have developed the first parent and HCP consensus on a COS for bronchiolitis in a hospital setting. The use of this COS will ensure outcomes in future bronchiolitis trials are important and relevant, and will enable the trial results to be compared and combined.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN75766048.

Experiences and perceptions of trial participants and healthcare professionals in the UK Frozen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST): a nested qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To explore the experiences and perceptions of trial participants and healthcare professionals in the UK Frozen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST), a multicentre randomised controlled trial that compared manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA), arthroscopic capsular release (ACR) with a 12-week early structured physiotherapy programme (ESP) in people with unilateral frozen shoulder referred to secondary care.

DESIGN

Nested qualitative study with semistructured interviews. We used constant comparison method to develop our themes.

SETTING

This qualitative study was nested within the UK FROST.

PARTICIPANTS

44 trial participants (ESP: 14; MUA: 15; ACR: 15), and 8 surgeons and 8 physiotherapists who delivered the treatments in the trial.

RESULTS

Trial participants found UK FROST treatments acceptable and satisfactory in terms of content, delivery and treatment benefits. Participants in all arms experienced improvements in pain, shoulder movements, and function. Participants said they would choose the same treatment that they received in the trial.Surgeons and physiotherapists felt that the content and delivery of UK FROST treatments was not significantly different to their routine practice except for the additional number of physiotherapy sessions offered in the trial. They had mixed feelings about the effectiveness of UK FROST treatments. Both stressed the value of including hydrodilatation as a comparator of other treatment options. Physiotherapists raised concerns about the capacity to deliver the number of UK FROST physiotherapy sessions in routine clinical settings.Shared perceptions of trial participants, surgeons and physiotherapists were: (1) Pain relief and return of shoulder movements and function are important outcomes and (2) Adherence to exercises leads to better outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In general, our findings indicated that trial participants, and surgeons and physiotherapists who delivered the treatments had positive experiences and perceptions in the UK FROST. Early qualitative investigations to explore the feasibility of delivering treatments in real-world settings are suggested in future trials in the frozen shoulder.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register, ID: ISRCTN48804508. Registered on 25 July 2014; Results.

Surgical treatments compared with early structured physiotherapy in secondary care for adults with primary frozen shoulder: the UK FROST three-arm RCT

BACKGROUND

Frozen shoulder causes pain and stiffness. It affects around 10% of people in their fifties and is slightly more common in women. Costly and invasive surgical interventions are used, without high-quality evidence that these are effective.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three treatments in secondary care for adults with frozen shoulder; to qualitatively explore the acceptability of these treatments to patients and health-care professionals; and to update a systematic review to explore the trial findings in the context of existing evidence for the three treatments.

DESIGN

This was a pragmatic, parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, three-arm, randomised superiority trial with unequal allocation (2 : 2 : 1). An economic evaluation and a nested qualitative study were also carried out.

SETTING

The orthopaedic departments of 35 hospitals across the UK were recruited from April 2015, with final follow-up in December 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with unilateral frozen shoulder, characterised by restriction of passive external rotation in the affected shoulder to < 50% of the opposite shoulder, and with plain radiographs excluding other pathology.

INTERVENTIONS

The inventions were early structured physiotherapy with a steroid injection, manipulation under anaesthesia with a steroid injection and arthroscopic capsular release followed by manipulation. Both of the surgical interventions were followed with post-procedural physiotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome and end point was the Oxford Shoulder Score at 12 months post randomisation. A difference of 5 points between early structured physiotherapy and manipulation under anaesthesia or arthroscopic capsular release or of 4 points between manipulation under anaesthesia and arthroscopic capsular release was judged clinically important.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 503 participants was 54 years; 319 were female (63%) and 150 had diabetes (30%). The primary analyses comprised 473 participants (94%). At the primary end point of 12 months, participants randomised to arthroscopic capsular release had, on average, a statistically significantly higher (better) Oxford Shoulder Score than those randomised to manipulation under anaesthesia (2.01 points, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 3.91 points; p = 0.04) or early structured physiotherapy (3.06 points, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 5.41 points; p = 0.01). Manipulation under anaesthesia did not result in statistically significantly better Oxford Shoulder Score than early structured physiotherapy (1.05 points, 95% confidence interval -1.28 to 3.39 points; p = 0.38). No differences were deemed of clinical importance. Serious adverse events were rare but occurred in participants randomised to surgery (arthroscopic capsular release,n = 8; manipulation under anaesthesia,n = 2). There was, however, one serious adverse event in a participant who received non-trial physiotherapy. The base-case economic analysis showed that manipulation under anaesthesia was more expensive than early structured physiotherapy, with slightly better utilities. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for manipulation under anaesthesia was £6984 per additional quality-adjusted life-year, and this intervention was probably 86% cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Arthroscopic capsular release was more costly than early structured physiotherapy and manipulation under anaesthesia, with no statistically significant benefit in utilities. Participants in the qualitative study wanted early medical help and a quicker pathway to resolve their shoulder problem. Nine studies were identified from the updated systematic review, including UK FROST, of which only two could be pooled, and found that arthroscopic capsular release was more effective than physiotherapy in the long-term shoulder functioning of patients, but not to the clinically important magnitude used in UK FROST.

LIMITATIONS

Implementing physiotherapy to the trial standard in clinical practice might prove challenging but could avoid theatre use and post-procedural physiotherapy. There are potential confounding effects of waiting times in the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the three interventions was clearly superior. Early structured physiotherapy with a steroid injection is an accessible and low-cost option. Manipulation under anaesthesia is the most cost-effective option. Arthroscopic capsular release carries higher risks and higher costs.

FUTURE WORK

Evaluation in a randomised controlled trial is recommended to address the increasing popularity of hydrodilatation despite the paucity of high-quality evidence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48804508.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Outcome Selection and Methodological Quality of Major and Minor Shoulder Surgery Studies: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Core outcome sets aim to select and standardize the choice of important outcomes reported in clinical trials to encourage more effective data synthesis, increase the reliability of comparing results, and minimize reporting bias. A core outcome set for elective shoulder surgery has yet to be defined, and therefore a systematic assessment of outcomes and methodology is necessary to inform the development of a core outcome set.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purpose of this study was to examine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients having elective major or minor shoulder surgery to (1) identify the outcome domains reported; (2) determine specific outcome measurement tools that were utilized; and (3) assess the work for methodological quality and risk of bias.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review (a review that identifies the nature and extent of research evidence) to explore the reported outcome domains, outcome tools, and methodological quality from RCTs conducted in shoulder surgery. We considered both major shoulder surgery (defined as arthroplasty, rotator cuff repair, stabilization procedures, biceps tenodesis, or Bankart repairs) and minor shoulder surgery (simple arthroscopy, capsular plication, lateral clavicular excisions, or subacromial decompression). We queried 10 electronic databases for studies published between January 2006 and January 2015. Studies were included if they were prospective, randomized controlled, clinical trials enrolling patients who received an elective shoulder surgical intervention. We extracted data relating to trial characteristics, primary outcomes, tools used to measure these outcomes as well as methodological quality indicators. We assessed indicators of methodological quality by exploring (1) the reproducibility of power analyses; and (2) whether the primary outcomes were powered to minimum clinically important differences. Risk of bias was also assessed with the Jadad score with scores between 0 (very high risk of bias) and 5 (very low risk). Findings were qualitatively analyzed and reported according to systematic and scoping review guidelines. We included 315 studies involving 30,232 patients; 266 studies investigated anesthetic, analgesic, or surgical interventions.

RESULTS

Of the 315 studies included, the most common outcome domains evaluated were analgesic (n = 104), functional (n = 87), anesthetic (n = 56), and radiologic (n = 29) outcomes, with temporal patterns noted. Studies of major shoulder surgery most commonly reported functional primary outcome domains, whereas minor shoulder surgery studies most frequently reported analgesic primary outcome domains. There were 85 different primary outcome tools utilized, which included 20 functional, 20 anesthetic, 13 analgesic, and 12 radiologic. A methodological quality assessment revealed that 24% of studies had reproducible power analyses, 13% were powered to minimum clinically important differences, and risk of bias assessment demonstrated a median (interquartile range [range]) Jadad score of 4 (3-5 [1-5]).

CONCLUSIONS

A wide range of outcome domains and outcome assessment tools are in common use in contemporary trials of patients undergoing elective surgery. Although some diversity is important to allow the assessment of patient populations that may have different goals, the large number of tools in common use may impair the ability of future meta-analyses to pool results effectively or even for systematic reviews to synthesize what is known. The limitations of methodological quality in RCTs may be improved by researchers following standard guidelines and considering the minimum clinically important differences in their trials to be of greater use to clinicians and their patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

The SPADI and QuickDASH Are Similarly Responsive in Patients Undergoing Physical Therapy for Shoulder Pain

Study Design Prospective multicenter longitudinal cohort study. Background A key component of assessing clinical effectiveness is to compare instruments measuring similar outcomes and to select one that is sufficiently responsive. Despite their widespread use in reporting outcomes, the responsiveness of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) and the shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) has not been compared and reported within the same population. Objective To compare the responsiveness of the SPADI and QuickDASH in a single large cohort of patients. Methods Seven hundred sixty-seven patients referred to physical therapy with shoulder pain completed the SPADI and QuickDASH at baseline, 6 weeks, and 6 months. Patients who improved (improvers) and those who did not improve (nonimprovers) were defined using a 7-point global rating of change scale. Internal and external responsiveness was evaluated. Results For improvers, the effect size and standardized response mean were large (greater than 1.00) at 6 weeks for both the SPADI and QuickDASH and further increased for both measures at 6 months. For participants who worsened, negative effect sizes and standardized response means were larger at 6 weeks than at 6 months. The area under the curve was similar for both the SPADI (0.81) and QuickDASH (0.78), increasing to 0.85 for both at 6 months. Conclusion Both instruments are similarly able to discriminate between clinical improvers and nonimprovers at either follow-up point. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(8):538-547. Epub 6 Jul 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7195.

A systematic review of the outcomes reported in trials of medication review in older patients: the need for a core outcome set

AIM

Medication review has been advocated as one of the measures to tackle the challenge of polypharmacy in older patients, yet there is no consensus on how best to evaluate its efficacy. This study aimed to assess outcome reporting in trials of medication review in older patients.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective studies and RCT protocols involving medication review performed in patients aged 65 years or older in any setting of care were identified from: (1) a recent systematic review; (2) RCT registries of ongoing studies; (3) the Cochrane library. The type, definition, and frequency of all outcomes reported were extracted independently by two researchers.

RESULTS

Forty-seven RCTs or prospective published studies and 32 RCT protocols were identified. A total of 327 distinct outcomes were identified in the 47 published studies. Only one fifth (21%) of the studies evaluated the impact of medication reviews on adverse events such as drug reactions or drug-related hospital admissions. Most of the outcomes were related to medication use (n = 114, 35%) and healthcare use (n = 74, 23%). Very few outcomes were patient-related (n = 24, 7%). A total of 248 distinct outcomes were identified in the 32 RCT protocols. Overall, the number of outcomes and the number and type of health domains covered by the outcomes varied largely.

CONCLUSION

Outcome reporting from RCTs concerning medication review in older patients is heterogeneous. This review highlights the need for a standardized core outcome set for medication review in older patients, to improve outcome reporting and evidence synthesis.

Identifying a core set of outcome domains to measure in clinical trials for shoulder disorders: a modified Delphi study

Objective

To achieve consensus on the most important outcome domains to measure across all clinical trials for shoulder disorders.

Methods

We performed an online modified Delphi study with an international, multidisciplinary and multistakeholder panel. A literature review and the OMERACT Filter 2.0 framework was used to generate a list of potential core domains, which were presented to patients, clinicians and researchers in two Delphi rounds. Participants were asked to judge the importance of each potential core domain and provide a rationale for their response. A core domain was defined a priori as a domain that at least 67% of participants considered core.

Results

In both rounds, 335 individuals were invited to participate (268 clinicians/researchers and 67 patients); response rates were 27% (n=91) and 29% (n=96), respectively. From a list of 41 potential core domains, four domains met our criteria for inclusion: ‘pain’, ‘physical functioning’, ‘global assessment of treatment success’ and ‘health-related quality of life’. Two additional domains, ‘sleep functioning’ and ‘psychological functioning’, met the criteria for inclusion by some, but not all stakeholder groups. There was consensus that ‘number of deaths’ was not a core domain, but insufficient agreement on whether or not several other domains, including ‘range of motion’ and ‘muscle strength’, were core domains.

Conclusions

Based on international consensus from patients, clinicians and researchers, ‘pain’, ‘physical functioning’, ‘global assessment of treatment success’ and ‘health-related quality of life’ were considered core outcome domains for shoulder disorder trials. The value of several other domains needs further consideration.

Core Outcomes for Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Consensus Study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. Surgical treatment is common, and there is a great need to improve the delivery of such care. The gold standard for evaluating surgery is within well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the impact of RCTs is diminished by a lack of coordinated outcome measurement and reporting. A solution to these issues is to develop an agreed standard "core" set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to facilitate cross-study comparisons, meta-analysis, and minimize outcome reporting bias. This study defines a core outcome set for CRC surgery.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The scope of this COS includes clinical effectiveness trials of surgical interventions for colorectal cancer. Excluded were nonsurgical oncological interventions. Potential outcomes of importance to patients and professionals were identified through systematic literature reviews and patient interviews. All outcomes were transcribed verbatim and categorized into domains by two independent researchers. This informed a questionnaire survey that asked stakeholders (patients and professionals) from United Kingdom CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain. Respondents were resurveyed following group feedback (Delphi methods). Outcomes rated as less important were discarded after each survey round according to predefined criteria, and remaining outcomes were considered at three consensus meetings; two involving international professionals and a separate one with patients. A modified nominal group technique was used to gain the final consensus. Data sources identified 1,216 outcomes of CRC surgery that informed a 91 domain questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63 out of 81 (78%) centers, including 90 professionals, and 97 out of 267 (35%) patients. Second round response rates were high for all stakeholders (>80%). Analysis of responses lead to 45 and 23 outcome domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. Consensus meetings generated agreement on a 12 domain COS. This constituted five perioperative outcome domains (including anastomotic leak), four quality of life outcome domains (including fecal urgency and incontinence), and three oncological outcome domains (including long-term survival).

CONCLUSION

This study used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in colorectal cancer surgical trials. It is now necessary to validate the use of this set in research practice.

Core domain and outcome measurement sets for shoulder pain trials are needed: systematic review of physical therapy trials

OBJECTIVES

To explore the outcome domains and measurement instruments reported in published randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions for shoulder pain (rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis, or nonspecific shoulder pain).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We included trials comparing physical therapy to any other intervention for shoulder pain, indexed up to March 2015 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, or CINAHL Plus. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted information on the domains and measurement instruments reported.

RESULTS

We included 171 trials. Most trials measured pain (87%), function (72%), and range of movement (67%), whereas adverse events, global assessment of treatment success, strength, and health-related quality of life were measured in 18-27% of trials, and work disability and referral for surgery were measured in less than 5% of trials. Thirty-five different measurement instruments for pain and 29 for function were noted. Measurement of function increased markedly from 1973 to 2014. In rotator cuff disease trials, there was a more frequent measurement of pain and strength and a less frequent measurement of range of movement compared with adhesive capsulitis trials.

CONCLUSIONS

There was wide diversity in the domains and measurement instruments reported. Our results provide the foundation for the development of a core domain and outcome measurement set for use in future shoulder pain trials.